IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
OP.No. 26042 of 2002(A)
1. MUHAMMED HANEEF C.P.,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY, ELECTRICITY
... Respondent
2. THRISSUR CORPORATION, REPRESENTED
For Petitioner :SRI.P.K.ABOOBACKER(EDATHALA)
For Respondent :SRI.K.B.MOHANDAS,SC,THRISSUR CORPORATIO
The Hon'ble MR. Justice HARUN-UL-RASHID
Dated :13/01/2009
O R D E R
HARUN-UL-RASHID,J.
---------------------------
O.P.NO.26042 OF 2005
----------------------------
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2009
JUDGMENT
Exts.P2 and P5 communications issued by the Thrissur
Municipal Corporation are under challenge. Thrissur Municipal
Corporation is the supplier of electric energy to the residents of the
Corporation under Low Tension consumption. Petitioner is one of
the consumers. According to him, the average consumption of
electric energy was assessed to be 400 units per month and that the
energy charge at present is fixed at Rs.976/- per month under tariff
LT-1-(4). Ext.P1 is the provisional invoice card. The petitioner
further submitted that at no point of time the consumption from the
connection exceeded the limit during all these years necessitating
the change of category based on the meter reading. It is submitted
by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been
paying the amount regularly and there was no occasion for
committing default in payment. The petitioner was served with a
-2-
OP.No.26042/2002
notice (Ext.P2) directing him to pay an amount of Rs.26,603/-
towards the arrears of electricity charges till March, 2001.
Ext.P2 notice was challenged by the petitioner in
O.P.No.21349/2002. This Court by Ext.P3 judgment directed the
petitioner to file objections and also directed the lst respondent to
permit the petitioner to verify the accounts and issue proper
statement of accounts. Pursuant to Ext.P3 the Corporation
forwarded the statement (Ext.P5). It is submitted that Ext.P5
statement is wrong for the reason that it starts with the opening
balance of Rs.1,569.78 as on 4/90 for the periods from 1990-91
to 2000-01, more than a period of ten years and that there is a
disparity in Exts.P2 and P5 that the amount demanded in Ext.P2
is Rs.26,603/- and the amount shown in Ext.P5 is Rs.35,653/-.
2. The question whether the Corporation is empowered
to realise the additional amount towards electricity charges for
the period from 1990-91 to 2000-01 is to be re-examined.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the claim of the
respondents from 1990 onwards is barred by limitation and that
-3-
OP.No.26042/2002
the respondents are not entitled to recover the dues by revenue
recovery proceedings or by attachment as per Ext.P2 notice.
According to him, the amount demanded in Exts. P2 and P5 is
not legally recoverable from the consumer.
3. In view of the circumstances stated above, this
Court direct the Thrissur Corporation to re-consider the matter
and decide the question whether the amount demanded is the
amount due and whether the said amount can be legally
recovered from the consumer. Before passing final orders, the
contentions raised in Ext.P4 shall also be considered. Final
order shall be passed within a period of four months from the
date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Further proceedings
pursuant to Exts.P2 and P5 shall be kept in abeyance, till a final
decision is taken in the matter.
Original Petition is disposed of as above.
HARUN-UL-RASHID,
Judge.
kcv.